2.5 A world of peculiarities
2.7.2 South African discourses in schooling children with Down syndrome
48
philosophy of inclusion coming through in additional research (Pudlas, 2003; Martinez, 2004) it is unfortunate that the positivity is not matched with preparation and training educators for inclusive schooling spaces. There are texts offering guidelines on inclusion to educators.
However, there is inadequate or negligible backing to fulfill that responsibility (Naylor, 2005).
In a research paper on exclusion in some public schools in Canada, Dhillon (2008) presented his view considering ideologies and practices that affect the successful inclusion of CWSN in the education system and in summary stated CWDD are excluded from having meaningful participation with their non-disabled peers. Allan (2008) researching the Netherlands context noted that there are fewer opportunties for CWDD to exercise their children’s rights as they have greater control exerted over them as they are considered ‘less able to achieve
academically, underachieve and socially excluded” (p. 40).
49
unitary system (inclusion) in South African education. They identified three main themes that affect inclusion in the South African context: insufficient capacity of knowledge, training and skills to execute educational inclusivity; absence of appropriate and ongoing educational and teacher support; inadequate amenities and teaching and learning material.
In a later study Engelbrecht, Swart, Oswald, and Eloff (2005), in reporting on the experiences of parents of placing their CWD in ordinary schools within Gauteng and Western Cape provinces of South Africa, explain that parents recognise the attitudes of schools towards inclusion of CWDD (with CWDS implicitly included in this category) as an important factor in creating successful inclusive experiences of schooling. These studies have established that parents recognised the scholastic, social and emotional advantages of the inclusive education context for both learners with and without disabilities. Almost in contradiction of this finding, the majority of parents felt that special education classes would serve their needs better.
Generally, the group that supported inclusive practices had fewer negative assumptions about DS (Gilmore, Campbell & Cuskelly, 2003).
A paper that made me think more about rural contexts of Kwa-Zulu Natal was authored by Jabulani and Muthukrishna (2011). The paper explored a school-based initiative in a semi- rural township that has included learners with disabilities. The findings indicated that although leaners with and without disabilities were together in the classroom, educators’
understandings of inclusion operated from a deficit model. In pathologising the lived
experiences of the disabled learners with disabilities, educators were attempting to change the learners to fit into mainstream and were referred to in terms of difference. Their comments included the condition of oppression that prevailed with disabled children subjected to prejudice, stigmatization and labelling. In homogenising the disabled learners, their
individuality was repudiated. One of the critical areas of attention was teacher professional development.
On another aspect related to inclusion, Donohue and Bornman (2014) identified that in South Africa, “up to 70% of children of school-going age with disabilities are out of school. Of those who do attend, most are still in separate, special schools for learners with disabilities”
(p. 1). This statistic is incongruous to expectations outlined in Education White Paper 6,
50
which has raised just concern from researchers because the urgency for implementation was initiated twelve years ago when the paper was crafted and put in place(Department of Education, 2001). The recommendation is that “the more children with disabilities are included in education and elsewhere in their communities, the sooner they can become productive and contributing members of society” (p. 12).
Data collected from research at three primary schools in in Kwa-Zulu Natal by Ntombela (2011) presented findings from considering two districts, that educators had minimal
understanding and experience of inclusion expectations in South Africa. She asserts that one of the contributing factors to this limitation is insufficient and ineffective skills improvement plan in disseminating information within education structures of the Department.
All of these studies cited adopted a general over-arching approach to inclusion research whether it is urban or rural in context with no specific medical diagnosis focus. Western Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natalwith a combined total of thirty-one percent of the total population are two provinces out of nine represented in the research and in papers. This is a third of an estimated population of fifty-four million. This information released as recent as 31 July 2014 by Statistics South Africa13 indicates that inclusion is under-researched. It reflects that study on attitudes towards inclusion of specific groupings of CWDS is even less researched, especially in South Africa. I wanted to know more about the background to segregated education systems and Lomofsky and Lazarus (2001) provided me with useful insights.
Ethnicity determined the separate facilities and the possibility existed that the proportion of Black learners was double compared to White schools. The entrenched discrepancies ensured
‘White’ learners received mandatory education. It was optional for ‘Non-White’ racial groups (Asmal & James, 2001).
Historically, the existence of regular and special schools (within segregated education) attest to the prevalent discriminatory practices entrenched in the period prior to democracy in 1994.
This exclusionary system was perpetuated for decades and resulted in obstruction of access to mainstream education for many learners (Naicker. 2006). Special schools for special needs practices reflected the operationalised medical deficit interpretation. Learners with disabilities
13 http://beta2.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022014.pdf
51
were routed to special schools which, compared to mainstream, “were under-resourced and for the most part were recognised to have provided sub-standard education that both reflected and entrenched the marginalised status of their learners” (Du Plessis, 2013, p. 204). Special
schools were further segregated according to race, with Whites receiving the largest portion of budget allocation and amongst the non-white comprising Black, Coloured and Indian. The Black children, received the smallest portion of the budget allocated for education
(Department of Education, 2001), and support was uncommon for CWD who attended schools accommodating their own race. Separate education departments and disproportionate allocation split along racial demarcations, reinforced partitions in the education system (Engelbrecht, Howell & Basset, 2002). Post 1994, when the National government made significant increases on allocation towards Black learners, “the amount spent per pupil in White schools was more than two and a half times that spent on behalf of Black students in the urban townships” (Fiske & Ladd, 2006, p. 95) This consternation is underlined by DuPlessis (2013) stating that Black learners admitted to special schools were exposed to double discrimination, first on account of their disability and secondly on account of their race (Du Plessis, 2013) Another consequence of the segregated systems of education for different race groups meant that many teachers as products of unequal systems of educations have not received adequate training in all aspects of teaching CWDD. This implies that many of the teachers in the current system of education who are products of disparate training systems are without the necessary skills to teach CWDS (Donohue & Bornman, 2014).
The existence of dual system of regular and special needs created a dichotomy and the
‘common referent’ (Graham & Slee, 2008, p. 281) or norm to which special needs is contrasted, is the regular mainstream school. Mainstream schools, prior to admission, show preference for learners perceived to be fitting the norm by scrutinizing application forms.
Evidence of deviancy of those not meeting the expectations meant rejection or diversion, to special needs schools. Tisdall and Riddel (2006) refer to classifications and suitability pre- requisites which could have inclusionary or exclusionary intentions for children (and parents).
The deficit interpretation which viewed the disability as residing in the individual translated into attempts to ‘cure’ or ‘treat’ the ‘condition’ with the expectation that the individual
52
limitations could be ‘cured’ or ‘restored’ to a level comparable to developmental norms (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009).With the ideal person viewed through the lens of ‘ableism’
(a devaluative attitude of disability ) where those who deviated from the view of being capable, were classified as disabled and assigned the ‘lesser’ status, with lowered expectation to accomplish tasks (Terzi, 2004). It was perceived that a cure for this diminished state was possible and if not reparable then the increased negative perception relegated the individual to social categories of deviancy and silenced (Campbell, 2008). Such conviction resulted in the special education ensconcing the discourse of ‘deficiency ‘and in that way excluding children who were not able to fit into the ‘norm’ (Soudien & Baxen, 2006). Research on inclusive education by Meltz, Herman and Pillay (2014) showed that disability is seen as “enforced on disabled people in addition to their impairment by a repressive and discriminating social structure” (p. 2).
According to Solorzano and Yosso (2001) the increasing challenge is that diversity among learners is not valued due to attitudes related to power, privilege and status. Learners who are categorised economically disadvantaged, English Second Language, as well as the
marginalised and vulnerable, may be at greater risk of exclusion. These labels and the stereotypical perspective associated with them, contribute to the expansion of the deficit model. This perspective attaches CWDD with negative descriptors such as anti-intellectual implying he or she cannot or is unable to achieve. In recent years these deficit theories have been criticised for attributing liability to the individual, perpetuating stereotypes, and disregarding institutional causes for learner not thriving but underachieving. However, such negativity is pervasive especially related to the education of CWDD. Du Plessis (2013) noted that “there are various reasons for the exclusion of children with disabilities from mainstream education. In most instances, exclusion from education is but one facet of the broader social exclusion of people with disabilities” (p. 203). She goes on to elaborate that there are some areas that are under-resourced and lacking basic service infrastructure to access piped water, electricity and indoor toilet facilities. With the social model locating disability as a social phenomenon in society the inference I draw is that CWD are sometimes more severely affected by personal restrictions resulting from impairments as well as environmental and social factors which complicates the chances of access to schooling spaces.
53
South Africa has had a past perforated with injustice, inequality and inaccessibility with regard to children’s access to best practices in education. Post-apartheid 1994 saw the ushering in of a new era and a deftly designed dispensation to redress the imbalances of the past. The Bill of Rights, which is embedded within The Constitution of South Africa, is commended worldwide. It underscores the rights of its citizens, one of which is basic
education. The rules of equitable access and opportunities are protected by legislation, such as the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 and the Constitution (1996). The Bill of Rights, considered a the foundation of equal opportunity and fairness in preserved in the Bill of Right in The Constitution of South Africa which is constructed with an acute awareness of the injustices of the past. The overhauling of the legislative framework created widespread policy development and subsequent legislation in social, economic, political and educational
domains. The concluding paper informing the education policy, “Education White Paper 6:
Special Needs Education, Building an inclusive education and training system”, was released in 2001. Inclusive Education, as outlined in the Education White Paper 6 (EWP6) is designed on the premise of establishing a society that is caring, humane and democratic. The emphasis is also to restore the human rights of all marginalised and vulnerable groups and entrench the rights of all South Africansto access basic education (RSA, 1996)
As I contemplated what forced this shift from an oppressive and dominating stance to one of social justice in a post-democracy, I thought of one of our revered heroes, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, whom we called Tata14. One of his beliefs, which fit so aptly into this study, is
“there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”. With our new democracy under his sturdy leadership the pride of its first time voters increased, and collectively, expectations of free and accessible schooling for all children were lifted. This potential route of meaningful participation and developing necessary societal and educational changes, (Loebenstein, 2005) signalled a new era. Increased mobilisation and political engagement of disabled people’s activities worldwide injected a shift in sociopolitical philosophy from the medical deficit or individual approach to
14 Tata is a isiXhosa word which means “father” and is a term of endearment that many South Africans use when speaking of the late, Mr Mandela.
54
the social approach based on principles of social justice.These changes to education for CWDD in South Africa are said to be underpinned by the international and domestic shift.
Various policies and legislation were put in place to provide the course on how to re-configure the unequal education system towards an inclusive, humane, egalitarian one. Branson and Zuze (2012) indicate that access to quality education, which includes higher education, can assist in replacing the pattern of inequity of South Africa (Branson & Zuze, 2012).
“South Africa’s Children – A Review of Equity and Child Rights” ( March 2011), a review
“undertaken by the South African Human Rights Commission and UNICEF South Africa”
offers the following insights: South Africa is cited as “one of the most unequal countries in the world”. The concluding remarks made in the review are an appeal for hastening the plan of reducing imbalances to meet the realization of children’s right. As a moral command, it is regarded as a crucial reflection of progress for a developing country. Noting that 30 000 children are absent from a classroom, within South African population of nearly 5 million children, must prompt focused consideration from policy makers, to prioritise their rights in government planning of events, spending and checking systems. Policy makers need to apply greater urgency in the move to attend to imbalances of the past and the present challenges faced by children who are poor. Inclusion then comes to be considered within an agenda of justice and fairness embodied in human rights. Seclusion and exclusion is then viewed as
“morally wrong” (p. 193)
The new democratic government of 1994 committed itself to the transformation of education.
One of the tenets of Education White Paper 6 was intended to address the gaps of inequity and inaccessibility in schooling. The policy envisaged a three-tier system of educational support services which meant that all learners could be accommodated, irrespective of the
developmental delay and according to the level of support required.
Learners who require lower levels of support will get that at mainstream or regular schools;
those needing moderate support can be accommodated at what are termed “full service schools” and those “who require high levels of support” will be enrolled in “special schools”
(Du Plessis, 2013, p. 204)
55
Availability and accessibility of schools (mainstream or special needs) to serve the needs of communities in urban and rural contexts is inconsistent or varied in districts and provinces.
South African researcher and advocate for social justice, Nithi Muthukrishna has conducted sustained research in rural and urban contexts. Her individual and collaborative research projects have generated persuasive reasons for inclusive education to be enclosed in a “human rights discourse” conveyed in” Education White Paper 6: Special Education — Building an Inclusive Education and Training System” (Department of Education, 2001). In South Africa, as with most parts of the world, research pertaining to access to education covers a broad spectrum of disabilities including autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, deafness and learning (Ngcobo & Muthukrishna, 2011, p. 359).